ISRAEL
will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven
months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the
attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the
Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s
nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost
certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive
Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It
is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that
matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or
that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a
traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and
military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil
supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But
should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the
Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear
level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes
the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful
applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional
economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere
and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain,
given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s
(and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western
intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return”
in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which
leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march
toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by
either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional
military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault
against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites
themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly
turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm
for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to
begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not
seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which
leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by
Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations
to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it
gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel
will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The
problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than
America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites
are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence,
it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use
of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even
Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian
nuclear project.

Nonetheless,
Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a
feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will
certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s
destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.

The
best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or
not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be
immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would
persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the
Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure
on Iran.

But
the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do
nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb
that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking
Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or
biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to
unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international
Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American
— targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of
provoking American military involvement).

Such
a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices.
One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best —
meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction
preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to
use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means
available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s
own nuclear arsenal.

Given
the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran,
Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the
comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold
war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and
because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike
to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is
probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a
Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

Iran’s
leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear
program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s
conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure,
this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation.
But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians
may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s
demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.

Benny Morris, a professor of Middle
Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of
“1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”

On
July 18, 2008 The New York Times published an article by Israeli-Jewish
historian, Professor Benny Morris, advocating an Israeli nuclear-genocidal
attack on Iran with the likelihood of killing 70 million Iranians – 12 times
the number of Jewish victims in the Nazi holocaust:

“Iran’s
leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.
Barring this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air
assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean
thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the
alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland.”

Morris
is a frequent lecturer and consultant to the Israeli political and military
establishment and has unique access to Israeli strategic military planners.
Morris’ advocacy and public support of the massive, brutal expulsion of all
Palestinians is on public record. Yet his genocidal views have not precluded his
receiving numerous academic awards. His writings and views are published in
Israel’s leading newspapers and journals. Morris’ views are not the idle
ranting of a marginal psychopath, as witnessed by the recent publication of his
latest op-ed article in the New York Times.

What
does the publication by the New York Times of an article, which calls for
the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians and the contamination of the
better part of a billion people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe, tell us
about US politics and culture? For it is the NYT, which informs the
‘educated classes’ in the US, its Sunday supplements, literary and editorial
pages and which serves as the ‘moral conscience’ of important sectors of the
cultural, economic and political elite.

The
New York Times provides a certain respectability to mass murder, which
Morris’ views otherwise would not possess if say, they were published in the
neo-conservative weeklies or monthlies. The fact that the NYT considers
the prospect of an Israeli mass extermination of millions of Iranians part of
the policy debate in the Middle East reveals the degree to which Zionofascism
has infected the ‘higher’ cultural and journalist circles of the United
States. Truth to say, this is the logical outgrowth of the Times public
endorsement of Israel’s economic blockade to starve 1.4 million Palestinians
in Gaza; the Times’ cover-up of Israeli-Zionist-AIPAC influence in
launching the US invasion of Iraq leading to over one million murdered Iraqi
citizens.

The
Times sets the tone for the entire New York cultural scene, which privileges
Israeli interests, to the point of assimilating into the US political discourse
not only its routine violations of international law, but its threats, indeed
promises, to scorch vast areas of the earth in pursuit of its regional
supremacy. The willingness of the NYT to publish an Israeli
genocide-ethnocide advocate tells us about the strength of the ties between a
purportedly ‘liberal establishment’ pro-Israel publication and the
totalitarian Israeli right: It is as if to say that for the liberal pro-Israel
establishment, the nonJewish Nazis are off limits, but the views and policies of
Judeo-fascists need careful consideration and possible implementation.

Morris’
New York Times ‘nuclear-extermination’ article did not provoke any
opposition from the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO)
because, in its daily information bulletin, Daily Alert, it has frequently
published articles by Israeli and US Zionists advocating an Israeli and/or US
nuclear attack on Iran. In other words, Morris’ totalitarian views are part of
the cultural matrix deeply embedded in the Zionist organizational networks and
its extensive ‘reach’ in US cultural and political circles. What the Times
did in publishing Morris’ lunacy has taken genocidal discourse out of the
limited circulation of Zionist influentials and into the mainstream of millions
of American readers.

Apart
from a handful of writers (Gentile and Jewish) publishing in marginal web sites,
there was no political or moral condemnation from the entire literary, political
and journalistic world of this affront to our humanity. No attempt was made to
link Morris’ totalitarian genocidal policies to Israel’s public official
threats and preparations for nuclear war. There is no anti-nuclear campaign led
by our most influential public intellectuals to repudiate the state (Israel) and
its public intellectuals who prepare a nuclear war with the potential to
exterminate more than ten times the number of Jews slaughtered by the Nazis.

A
nuclear incineration of the nation of Iran is the Israeli counterpart of
Hitler’s gas chambers and ovens writ large. Extermination is the last stage of
Zionism: Informed by the doctrine of rule the Middle East or ruin the air and
land of the world. That is the explicit message of Benny Morris (and his
official Israeli sponsors), who like Hitler, issues ultimatums to the Iranians,
‘surrender or be destroyed’ and who threatens the US, join us in bombing
Iran or face a world ecological and economic catastrophe.

That
Morris is utterly, starkly and clinically insane is beyond question. That the New
York Times in publishing his genocidal ravings provides new signs of how
power and wealth has contributed to the degeneration of Jewish intellectual and
cultural life in the US. To comprehend the dimensions of this decay we need only
compare the brilliant tragic-romantic German-Jewish writer, Walter Benjamin,
desperately fleeing the advance of totalitarian Nazi terror to the
Israeli-Jewish writer, Benny Morris’ criminal advocacy of Zionist nuclear
terror published in the New York Times.

The
question of Zionist power in America is not merely a question of a ‘lobby’
influencing Congressional and White House decisions concerning foreign aid to
Israel. What is at stake today are the related questions of the advocacy of a
nuclear war in which 70 million Iranians face extermination and the complicity
of the US mass media in providing a platform, nay a certain political
respectability for mass murder and global contamination. Unlike the Nazi past,
we cannot claim, as the good Germans did, that ‘we did not know’ or ‘we
weren’t notified’, because it was written by an eminent Israeli academic and
was published in the New York Times.

THE FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE
ZIONIST APARTHEID REGIME OF ISRAEL REGARDING THE APARTHEID WALL IN OCCUPIED
PALESTINE CONTINUESby
Benjamin Merhav

More
than 4 years ago, on 9 July 2004, at the request of the United Nations, the
International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an AdvisoryOpinion on the
legal consequences of Israel's construction of a wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories. The Court made clear that the construction of the Wall
and the settlements were illegal.

'The
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, despite intense pressure from
Israel, the US and EU Governments, confirms what Palestinians and the world have
known since the beginning of its planning and construction - THE
WALL IS ILLEGAL!

Citing the Right to Self Determination, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, relevant human rights and humanitarian
law, as well as the Rights to Freedom of Movement, Work, Education, Health, Food
and Water, Religion and the Right of the Child, the ICJ voted 14-1 that
'construction of the wall and its associated regime are contrary to
international law' that Israel must immediately cease construction of the Wall
in all areas, dismantle parts already build and repeal any legislation or
regulation relating to the Wall and that Israel must make reparations
for damages caused by construction of the Wall.

The ICJ reiterates the illegality of Israeli settlements and their
relationship to the Wall's path, referring to the Wall's unilateral demarcation
of a new border in the West Bank, seizure and destruction of property, the
effective annexation of occupied lands and settlements and the demographic
changes within Palestine as a result of the Wall's construction. In an important
assertion, the Court fully disregards the relevance of the Israeli position
that the Wall is for 'security' or 'self defense.'

In the introduction to its website the Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign
organisation states as follows:

'Palestinian
grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign

The
Palestinian grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign is a coalition of
Palestinian non governmental organizations and popular committees that mobilize
and coordinate efforts on local, national and international levels. These
efforts are focused upon stopping and dismantling the Apartheid Wall, and
resisting Israeli occupation and colonization.

A
call for a coordinated, popular, and grassroots effort to tear down the Wall
came out of Jerusalem on the 2nd of October 2002, from the office of the
Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (PENGON). From this moment the
Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign was born. The Campaign initiated its work on three
levels: acting as the voice of communities locally; mobilization and
coordination nationally; and additionally as part of the global struggle against
colonization, war and racism.'

The
following current news items are reported by the website. The first is about the
murder of a Palestinian young boy by the the zionist occupation army in the
village of Ni'lin. The second reports the zionist 'legalisation' of the wall and
the land robbery near the Palestinian village of Jayyus. The third reports the
continuation of Palestinian resistance to the wall.

At
5 pm today, the Occupation forces in Ni'lin shot Ahmad Husam Yousef Mousa, a
12-year-old boy from the village.
After the demonstration had finished, Ahmad was sitting under a tree when alive
bullet pierced his head. The boy died immediately. His funeral will be held
tomorrow morning. The village of Ni'lin has been holding continuous protests
against the Wall for over 80 days with the support of national and international
activists.

The
murder of Ahmad Mousa today comes after a series of other oppressive tactics by
the Occupation forces, including an imposed 5 day complete siege and curfew on
the village from July 4 to July 9 2008. These are seen as attemptsto repress the
mobilization of the people fighting against the construction of the Wall; the
Wall that, upon completion, will isolatethe village of Ni'lin from their lands
and livelihoods.

The
murder of the child follows a clear pattern the Occupation has established, in
which they have killed youth in other villages in the Ramallah district where
people were staging ever more powerful demonstrations and protests against the
Apartheid Wall in defense of their lands and futures. On July 8, 2005 they
killed 15 year old Mahyoub Assi in Beit Liqiya. On May 14, 2005 Jamal Jaber, 15
years old,and Uday Mofeed, 14, were murdered in the same village, and on
April19, 2004 Diya', 24 years old.

After
a five-year battle against the Apartheid Wall, the Occupation courts presented
the villagers in Jayyous with a decision that de facto sanctions both the Wall
and the settlement expansion that it secures.

The
Israeli Occupation Authorities agreed to change the route of the Apartheid Wall
near Jayyus village to the north of Qalqiliya, by replacing a 2.4-kilometer
stretch with 4.9 kilometers of Wall closer to the Green Line (approximately 4
kilometers inside the West Bank).

The
change in the route of the Apartheid Wall will return 2,609 dunums (out of
almost 9,000 dunums) of agricultural land to its Palestinian owners, while 5,585
dunums will be confiscated once and for all and will be used for settlement
expansion plans. A further 277 dunums of land will be razed for the new path of
the Wall. Farmers will be completely cut off from their lands that are on the
other side of the Wall as the gates in this section of the Wall will be
completely closed.

The
settlement of Zufim is slated to swallow much of the annexed land together with
an industrial zone the Occupation will build on the agricultural lands of
Jayyous. The construction of infrastructure for the new part of the settlement
called 'North Zufim' has already begun. Construction of an electricity network
has started and the creation of housing units is imminent.

Once
again the Occupation promotes acourt decision as a concession that presumably is
to 'legalize' the Wall. Yet, it simply seals the farmers' fate of dispossession.
The Wallis not less illegal and no less a tool of colonization and settlement
expansion; furthermore, Palestinians do not fight to re-route the Wall but to
tear it down.
This land grab is only the most recent in along history of colonization Jayyous
has faced. After 1948, 'Ra'anana' was built on part of the village's land. Later
on, Zufim settlement was built on the land that remained. Using the Wall,
Occupation forces have until now isolated some 70% of Jayyous' farmland and six
out of Jayyous' seven artesian wells. They have uprooted over 6,000 olive trees.
85% of the people in the village were farmers working in their fields or tending
cattle who are now, for the major part, unemployed.

This
map drawn up by the Occupation authorities was handed over to the people in
Jayyous. The pink line shows the current path of the Wall; the blue and red line
the path of the Wall approved yesterday; the yellow line a proposal that has
been discarDed. The green line at the bottom marks a proposed change of the
Wall's path that is still under discussion in the Occupation courts. The blue
areas mark Zufim settlement and its expansion areas, Zufim north and the planned
industrial zone to the east.

Young
people attending summer camps in areas surrounding al-Ma'sra today joined the
village for their weekly demonstration against the Apartheid Wall.

Over
200 people gathered in al-Ma'sra before marching to wards the area where village
land is being destroyed to make way for construction of the Wall. As they
reached the site of construction, they were confronted by occupation forces.
However, facing down the soldiers the young people began pushing and pulling at
the fence, and the Occupation forces were unable to push them back.

Many
of the young people involved in today's demonstrations are too young to remember
the days before the Intifada, and have grown up with continuous siege,
checkpoints, invasions and the destruction of their family lands for the Wall.

However,
the crimes of the occupation will never become normal or acceptable to the
Palestinian people, and the new generation will not surrender to the
occupation's creation of facts on the ground; the tactics of resistance will
develop with each new generation.

Germany has replaced Christianity with a
pernicious cult: “Holocaust religion.” In 1994, the parliament of the
defunct “Bundesrepublik Deutschland” (BRD) - the post re-unification Federal
Republic of Germany - treasonously mandated imposed Zionist legislation making
it a criminal offense to deny or even play down the so-called “Jewish
Holocaust.”

Anyone in Germany who publicly denies the
propagandistic narrative upon which the terrorist state of Israel was
established or questions any one of the many anomalies extant in the doctrine of
official “history,” faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

Indeed, two German scholars, Ernst Zündel and
Germar Rudolf were illegally abducted from the United States and imprisoned for
presenting scientific evidence that a phenomenal hoax called the “Jewish
Holocaust” had taken place.

Zündel's lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, was herself
imprisoned for three years in January of 2008 simply for presenting supportive
evidence on behalf of her client. British historian David Irving was snatched by
police on a private trip to Austria and imprisoned for once having presented
verifiable proof that the gas chambers in Auschwitz were constructed as
propagandistic museum pieces in late 1948.

Yet hardly anyone mentions the “German
Holocaust” which entailed the systematic murder, starvation, and death by
typhus of almost 3,500,000 displaced and impoverished German citizens, whose
corpses were stacked in the former labor camps of Auschwitz, Belsen and
Treblinka - and photographed by the Zionist media as “evidence” of
“mass-murdered Jews.”

In a speech given to the Israeli Knesset on
March 19, 2008, Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel, reiterated the
decades-old reparations doctrine by saying: “Germans are filled with shame
over the Jewish holocaust.”

The German media is now reporting that many
Germans, particularly young people who no longer believe their teachers, are
suffering from “holocaust fatigue” and no longer trust Berlin’s Zionist
puppets, such as Angela Merkel, to tell them the truth. Yet even those who are
brave enough to commit “heresy” and risk the wrath of the Jewish Inquisition
are forced to whisper their dissent using coded language lest thy find
themselves in a German Soviet Gulag, such as Mannheim.

Germany under its Zionist controlled leaders
has now reached the point in which certain words used in German society will
make one highly suspect. In Europe’s dissenting underground community these
words are known as “Germany’s forbidden words.”

PUTTING A MUZZLE ON THE
MOUTHS OF GERMANS

Highly charged words which are monitored by the
Zionist thought police express the true inner thoughts of most Germans. There
are 5 words that could get a German in trouble:

1) “Leitkultur”
- This word denotes the “predominant culture” of German and European social
mores which most Germans wish to retain as part of their Germanic culture.

An example of the fallout which occurred after
using the forbidden word “Leitkultur” was evidenced when Friedrich Merz, a
former leading member of the Christian Democratic Union, used the term
“Leitkultur von Deutschland” to describe what immigrants coming to Germany
should aspire to.

Merz inspired, (as did Jurgen Molleman of the Free
Democrats who is believed to have been “suicided” by Mossad in June
2003), an awakening German patriotism by striking a chord in a country where
acceptance of “Alleinschuld,” (German guilt for WWII), continually
propagated by Germany’s Jews and Zionist-leadership, is on the wane. Merz’s
use of the word “Leitkultur” sparked an intense national debate among
ordinary people who long for a return to traditional German Christian values.

Leaders of the Zionist Jewish community
attacked Merz with a vengeance. The German Jewish community leader, Paul
Spiegel, the former President of the ADL-style Central Council of Jews in
Germany, facetiously asked 200,000 people gathered at the disingenuously
named We Stand Up for Humanity and Tolerance demonstration held in
Berlin on November 9, 2000:

“What’s all this talk of Leitkultur? Does
German Leitkultur include hunting down foreigners and burning synagogues? Are
we talking about a culture or about the prevailing values of democracy as
stated in our national constitution?

“For Article One of that constitution
states: ‘The dignity of mankind is inviolable. The duty of national power is
its protection.’ Now the dignity of mankind is inviolable not just the
dignity of European Christians!”

(Read the full speech translated by Hanna Sachs
HERE
and reflect on the many ways in which Jews are working to strip Christians of
their “inviolable dignity.”)

Merz quickly became anathema in the eyes of the
Jewish-controlled media and has since effectively retired from active
participation in politics.

2) “Verdorbene
Kultur”/”Entartete Kultur” - These phrases
denote a rotten or decadent culture, which the German people of the 1920s and
1930s perceived as emanating from prominent Jews in the media, arts, film,
theatre, and the sex and drugs trade.

The phrase “Verdorbene Kultur” was cited in
July 2007 by Horst Mahler, a leading German revisionist historian, when saying
that Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf” should no longer be banned in Germany
since it provided well-founded definitions of what constituted a
Zionist-enslaved culture in moral decline. In so doing, Mahler was subject to
months of abuse by the Jewish-controlled media, Germany’s Central Council
of Jews, and the political elites.

In his still very popular book, Hitler wrote
that one of the main evils responsible for the suffering, hunger and poverty of
the German people was the German-Jewish role in creating a “rotten culture”
of decadent art designed to destroy the true moral fiber of a once-proud
civilization:

“Culturally, the Jew contaminates art,
literature, and the theater by overthrowing all concepts of beauty and
sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the
sphere of his own base nature” HERE

The idea of lifting the ban on Mein Kampf
was swiftly criticised by Jewish groups. Wolfgang Benz, the head of the Centre
For Anti-Semitism Research in Berlin, described it as “absurd.” Salomon
Korn, of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said it would be an insult to
Holocaust survivors.

Horst Mahler, who is no stranger to the Federal
Republic of Germany’s brutal Gulag system, has just been sentenced to 11
months imprisonment for treating the Jew Michel Friedman with “disrespect.”
Friedman, a notoriously arrogant talk show host and a former deputy General
Secretary of the ZJD with a criminal record as a cocaine dealer and a suspected
key player in the illicit sex trafficking trade, filed suit following an
interview with Mahler in the November 2007 German edition of “Vanity Fair.”

In September 2007, the Catholic Archbishop of
Cologne, Cardinal Meisner, ignited a firestorm of controversy when he told his
congregation “a culture without God is a decadent culture.”

The ZJD went ballistic, denouncing the cardinal
for using a word frequently cited by the National Socialists in their
condemnation of decadent Jewish art, organized prostitution rings, sex
trafficking and the drugs trade.

3) “Volksgemeinschaft”
- This phrase denotes a society based upon the principles of a “Leitkultur”
that prioritizes the needs of its own citizens. The Jewish State of Occupied
Palestine (Israel) itself is indeed a “Volkgemeinschaft.”

However, in Germany, anyone who writes or
speaks about the advantages of a “Volksgemeinschaft” for the German people is subject to prosecution under
Section 130 and other laws that prohibit speaking favorably of National
Socialism, which itself was based upon the promotion of a Volksgemeinschaft. In
Israel, such people who hold to this creed are described as the “Chosen
People.” In Germany, they are branded as “Nazis” and face imprisonment of
up to five years.

4) “Jude”
(Jew) - It is considered by the authorities as “anti-Semitic” to call a Jew
a “Jew.” One must always refer to a Jew as a “Jewish person.” The irony
is that 95 percent of all Semites living in the world today are Arabs. The other
five percent are Sephardic Jews, who are themselves genetically identical to
Palestinians.

5) “Vaterland”
(Fatherland) - The police are obliged to question any German who refers to his
home country as the “Fatherland.” The word is associated with National
Socialism and those inclined to use it are branded as “Nazis.”

In Germany there exists a list of hundreds of
forbidden words and phrases. We, Brother Nathanael and Michael James, have
mentioned only five. Remove the muzzle — go to jail.

Common
sense: if there was a Nazi official extermination policy in place, then why
clothe, house, and feed Jewish prisoners? Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor! - 8th Commandment. I wish the Jews no harm, but I refuse
to smear Germany for the sake of international diplomacy. It's well documented -
Antony Sutton is one example - that Wall St. and London banks financed
Hitler. One bank was the J. Henry Schroder bank in Germany.

FEDERAL
Health Minister Nicola Roxon has urged Jewish medical specialists to help the
Rudd Government reform the nation’s health system. At the launch of AusIMed
Research Fund in Melbourne on Tuesday night, Roxon addressed the hundreds of
doctors and health professionals in the room. “We have an opportunity now to
change, but we need that input and those ideas,” Roxon said. “I would like
to encourage all of you to consider being part of the reform process ... we
really need to tap the talent that you bring to this sort of debate.”

After listening to presentations from neurologist Professor Stephen Davis,
children’s health specialist Professor Frank Oberklaid, adolescent expert
Professor Susan Sawyer and Dr Yair Birnbaum from Jerusalem’s Hadassah Medical
Organisation, Roxon said she was optimistic about AusIMed’s potential. “I
hope that AusIMed, in the years to come, sparks brilliant new ideas, exciting
new approaches and gives us advances in medicine that are as important as
penicillin, Gardasil or the X-ray,” Roxon said.

The Health Minister also quipped that she hoped AusIMed would be a successful
cross-cultural collaboration, just like herself. “I do have to have to confess
to being a cross-cultural collaboration myself, between a family of socialist,
Polish Jews and a family of Anglican saw-millers living in northern New South
Wales.”

At the launch, which formalised research ties between Australia and Hadassah,
former Victorian premier Steve Bracks was acknowledged as the catalyst for the
new fund. Bracks, after visiting Israel in 2004, encouraged Hadassah and
Melbourne’s The Alfred hospital to share knowledge on trauma medicine, which
is their joint speciality.

__________________________________________________

Should Shoah education be made compulsory?

Naomi
Levin, July 22, 2008
THE debate over whether Holocaust education should be compulsory has re-emerged
after an education expert expressed surprise that students in New South Wales
can complete high school without learning about the Shoah.

In a speech delivered more than a month ago, but which was only recently
published in The Australian, Michael Coutts-Trotter, the head of the NSW
Department of Education and Training, said he regretted that learning about
“the destruction of the Jews in Europe” was not mandatory.

“You will know a lot about Don Bradman, and that’s terrific. But I think to
live life, you need to know the Holocaust happened,” said Coutts-Trotter.

When contacted by The AJN, the NSW education department said Coutts-Trotter was
on holidays and not available for comment.

The history curriculum in NSW and Victoria does not include compulsory Holocaust
education, but in Victoria, high school students are expected to learn about
“the impact of significant issues”, including World War II, and about “key
leaders”, including Adolf Hitler.

In NSW, students are required to study World War II, but the emphasis appears to
be on the war in the Pacific, rather than Europe.

While education guidelines vary from state to state, earlier this year, Federal
Education Minister Julia Gillard said the government’s aim was to develop a
national curriculum.

A spokesperson for the National Curriculum Board said it was yet to set a
direction for specific subjects, such as history, and that the next few months
would see “wide-ranging consultation” about general directions for a
national curriculum, as well as specific forums on subjects.

Jewish community organisations currently work with their respective state
governments to encourage schools to teach students about discrimination, racism
and genocide.

Vic Alhadeff, chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, said his
organisation was “working in consultation with the NSW Department of
Education, the NSW Board of Studies and other community groups, especially those
whose histories included experiences of state-sponsored terror and genocide”.

“The Jewish community endorses the strong anti-racism policy and programming
that exists in NSW schools and is endeavouring to raise awareness that
anti-Semitism is a form of racism which is as unacceptable as all others,” he
said.

However, a Jewish education expert warned that making Holocaust studies
compulsory could be problematic, because teachers may not be properly trained to
teach about the Shoah and students could be hostile to mandatory subjects.

________________________________________________

EDITORIAL HATRED MAINSTREAMED
Is Anti-Semitism Becoming Normalized?

JEWISH LIGHT EDITORIAL, July 31, 2008

The statute of limitations on overt expressions of anti-Semitism seems to
have expired. For decades after the horrors of World War II, blatant
anti-Semitism was tantamount to political suicide among mainstream political
leaders of all stripes. No more. The anti-Semitic rhetoric spewing forth from
the Middle East, Western Europe and the nations of the former Soviet Union has
evolved from a trickle to a virtual flood. The danger, of course, is that
anti-Semitism is becoming "normalized" as a part of political
discourse. Consider the following:

* The JTA reported that Ukrainian politician Oleg Tyagnybok called for
"a purge of Jews" in his country. In a speech last month, Tyagnybok,
formerly with Our Ukraine, Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko's parliament
faction, called for "merciless action" against Jews and Russians who
have "seized power" in Ukraine. Tyagnybok was expelled from Our
Ukraine in 2004, reportedly for using anti-Semitc and xenophobic slogans during
a speech. Tyagnybok reportedly lashed out at Yuschenko by claiming that his
surrogates are beginning to use the same words that got him expelled from the
president's parliament faction. Ukraine has a long and bloody history of
anti-Semitism going back centuries and through the Holocaust. The fact that both
opposition and mainstream politicians are using anti-Semitic slurs in political
speeches without fear of repercussion is a more-than-disturbing sign of the
times.

* In Berlin, at the Third Transatlantic Conference (supported partly by
German federal funding), Mohammed Javad Larijani, former foreign minister of
Iran, repeatedly said that "denial of the Holocaust in the Muslim world has
nothing to do with anti-Semitism." The assertion would be comical if it
were not yet another example of the extent to which current and former officials
feel comfortable in making absurd and hateful assertions in international
forums. Larijani also asserted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
"never denied the Holocaust," even though he hosted an international
conference of Holocaust deniers in Tehran.

* In Saudi Arabia, often mislabeled a "moderate, pro-Western"
regime, government-controlled newspapers routinely publish articles claiming
that Jews use the blood of Muslim and Christian children to prepare Hamentashen
for Purim, a new spin on the ancient "blood libel." Way back when,
anti-Semitic fanatics claimed that Jews killed Christian children to bake their
blood into matzah.

* In Egypt, state-controlled TV serialized the infamous anti-Semitic forgery,
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claims a worldwide Jewish conspiracy
is responsible for all wars and economic crises in history, up to the present.
Egypt, also a so-called "moderate" Arab state largely because of its
peace treaty with Israel, routinely publishes vile anti-Semitic cartoons in its
state-controlled media. Unlike the frenzied reaction to the publication of
anti-Muslim cartoons in a Danish newspaper two years ago, the Egyptian
anti-Jewish cartoons have been largely ignored by mainstream media as a routine
reality.

* In Russia, ultra-nationalist and xenophobic political groups attacked
Dmitry Medvedev for his allegedly Jewish parentage when former Russian President
Vladimir Putin nominated him to succeed Putin to the presidency. Medvedev's
mother is believed to have been Jewish. To Medvedev's credit, he has strongly
denounced anti-Semitic acts, cases of xenophobia and chauvinism and anti-Russian
sentiment since taking office as president.

* In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has strongly condemned anti-Semitism
in the wake of several attacks on Jews around his country. But just a few days
ago, Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of France's extreme right, publicly made a joke
about World War II crematoriums. His "joke" follows comments he made
last fall that the Nazi gas chambers were a "minor point" in history.
While Le Pen's comments are routinely condemned by French officials, he received
14 percent of the vote in the first round of France's presidential election in
April.

Political leaders around the world should follow the positive example of
Medvedev and Sarkozy and denounce — in the strongest possible terms — any
and all manifestations of anti-Semitism. For nearly half a century, politicians
anywhere outside of the Middle East would never have dared to tolerate, let
alone encourage, public anti-Semitism. If that tide is turning, we must stop it
now.

We must not allow anti-Semitism to become "normalized" as part of
political discourse in this nation or anywhere in the world. We must vigorously
support groups like the Jewish
Community Relations Council and the Anti-Defamation
League as they respond swiftly and forcefully to the return of anti-Semitism
in the public square. We already know the consequences of silence in the face of
raw hatred.

... and now something from
the perverted and unbalanced mind of a delusional 'Nazi-hunter'...

Pursuing
a symbol of Nazi perversion

By
Efraim Zuroff

Doesn't
the world owe it to all the Nazis' victims to make equal efforts to bring each
of their torturers and killers to justice? Recently, I've found myself
increasingly preoccupied with that question, following a two-week mission to
South America on the trail of the Wiesenthal Center's most-wanted Nazi war
criminal, Dr. Aribert Heim. Heim committed his most heinous crimes at the
Mauthausen concentration camp, where his nickname was "Doctor Death."

To put the question into proper perspective, it is important to note that during
practically every press conference I conducted or interview that I gave in South
America, I had to address the question of the validity or value of the effort to
track down a 94-year-old war criminal. In every venue, I recited the standard
mantras: "The passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the
killers"; "a suspect's advanced age is no reason to ignore mass
murder"; and "the practical implication of establishing a time limit
for prosecuting genocide suspects is that those lucky enough, rich enough or
smart enough to elude justice will ultimately be allowed to get away with their
crimes." However, I also stressed the concept that every man and woman
persecuted by the Nazis deserves that an effort be made to find and hold
accountable those who turned them, innocent civilians, into victims.

I noted in my remarks that Simon Wiesenthal himself had always stressed this
principle, and in fact I deeply believe in its validity and moral power. But the
fact of the matter is that our recent mission to Chile and Argentina clearly
underscores the unfortunate fact that not all of the Nazis' victims get equal
treatment when it comes to the investment made to bring their killers to
justice, and the Heim case is a classic illustration.

For
starters, Heim is the only Nazi war criminal in recent history who is being
sought by four different police forces - those of Germany, Austria, Chile and
Argentina. He is, to the best of my knowledge, the only Holocaust perpetrator in
at least the past three decades, for whose capture a special task force was
established by the German police. Also he is the only such criminal for whom a
huge reward is being offered: 315,000 euros (135,000 euros from the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, 130,000 euros from the German government, and 50,000 euros
from the Austrian government).

It is true that these relatively excellent and virtually unprecedented
conditions stem, to a large extent, from the fact that Heim has been on the run
since 1962, when he disappeared from his home in Baden-Baden after being tipped
off that the West German police were about to arrest him for his crimes at
Mauthausen. So while it is true that the current whereabouts of all the other
Holocaust perpetrators on our "most wanted" list (with one exception)
are now known, down to their exact address and telephone number, the fact is
that none of the police forces in their countries of residence were looking for
them at all before they were exposed as Nazi war criminals.

Given the fact that criminals like John Demjanjuk (sic -AI), Sandor Kepiro and
Milivoj Asner - Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the list, respectively - played an active
role in the liquidation of at least hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent
civilians, one may ask what allows the Heim case to benefit from special status,
abundant political good will and relatively munificent financial resources?

The answer to this question became apparent when our team traveled to Puerto
Montt, Chile and Bariloche, Argentina - the area where we believe he is
currently hiding. Although we had previously publicized the reward for Dr. Heim
in Chile and Argentina, it was only when we actually reached Patagonia and had
an opportunity to describe his crimes in great detail, that we felt that we were
finally getting our message across to the wider public. This achievement was no
doubt considerably enhanced by the fact that Heim's daughter is living in Puerto
Montt, and it became evident to us in two ways: One was the flow of information
that reached us from informants in the area, either via our hotline or in
person. The other was the expressions of support, on the one hand, and
opposition, on the other, from various local residents.

What became clear was that even if Heim had committed his crimes 67 years ago,
their utter cruelty simply could not be ignored. So although I consciously tried
not to overdo the descriptions - of the injections of phenol directly into the
hearts of inmates, the operations performed without anesthesia, the castrations
and use of body parts of those murdered as decorations - the few facts I did
relate made quite an impact.

In other words, the key issues that elevated Heim to his current status were the
degree of his own personal responsibility for his crimes and their absolutely
horrific nature, all compounded by the fact that he was a doctor who had pledged
to protect and save his patients, whom he instead mercilessly murdered. In that
respect, Heim easily became a symbol of the Nazis' perversion and misuse of
medicine - a fact which no doubt increased his "attractiveness" as a
target for all of us.

If Mengele was never prosecuted, perhaps Dr. Death's apprehension and punishment
could be a partial atonement by those who failed to bring the "Angel of
Death" to justice. I certainly have no objection to the efforts and
resources being invested in trying to bring Heim to justice. I only wish that a
far more serious effort was being to made to ensure that the killers of the
other victims will also be held accountable in this world.

Dr. Efraim Zuroff is director of the Israel office of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center.

PALESTINIAN CONFERENCE EMBRACES HOLOCAUST AS
"MYTH"
Fredrick Töben, Director of the Holocaust-denying Adelaide Institute, was a
speaker at an Indonesian conference hosted by the Voice of Palestine and the
Center for Islam and Middle East Studies last month. Töben urged participants
to Holocaust denial as a part of the Palestinian cause. “Israel uses the
Holocaust-Shoah as a shield and sword, and so the Revisionists’ arguments
would demolish any reason for the existence of the Zionist state, thereby
liberating Palestine from Zionist oppression,” he said. Töben described both
the Shoah and the Jewish people as a myth and used the word Holocaust instead to
describe the situation of Palestinians. “The Holocaust-Shoah is an ugly, evil
death cult spreading hatred against Germans and justifying the Palestinian
Holocaust,” he said, About 500 people attended the conference entitled
"The Oppression of a People: Palestine Right of Return: Its Legal and Moral
Principles" with representatives from the Palestinian territories, the
United States, Egypt, Iran, South Africa and Senegal. Fredrick Töben's view of
the Jakarta conference can be viewed here.